Posted
by
Soulskillon Sunday March 14, 2010 @11:33AM
from the learning-from-china's-fine-example dept.

terets1 writes "Reuters reports that Venezuela's leader, Hugo Chavez, issued a call on Saturday for 'internet controls' to prevent rumors and inaccurate reporting from spreading. He specifically cited a case in which a website incorrectly reported that a senior minister had been assassinated and kept the story up for two days. Many of Venezuela's opposition movements use social networking sites to communicate. It is not apparent at this time exactly what kind of controls Chavez has in mind or whether those controls will be similar to the controls in Iran that have been used to silence opposition movements. Chavez said, 'The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms.'"

I'd like to note that the one tv station that was closed was one of two which openly expressed opposite opinions to the government. The other one is on the verge of not having its licence renewed. It's not a belief: It's a fact. THe rest of the tv stations are simply silent to Chavez abuse of power. Regardless of your opinion, the abuse of power is a fact, whether you think it's for a good or a bad thing.
He also closed down several radio stations out of the weird justification that they were all part of a large network. The thing to learn in Venezuela is that you can't really be too successful.

I'd like to note that the one tv station that was closed was one of two which openly expressed opposite opinions to the government.

Opposed only to the democratically elected government: When there was a coup, and Chavez was kidnapped, that station said he had resigned. When a million people took to the streets, waving copies of their constitution saying that the president can't be removed like that, that TV station said that the streets were quiet and the people were happy of the change of government.

So when it came time for their license to be renewed, years later, they were denied. They didn't close down, they're still on cable, and

Wait, wait, were you here when the coup happened?
Because I could speak at lenghts about all that happened there, including Chavez taking up on a national forced broadcast - which happens bassically every damn day - and when it ended, a bunch of people - including journalists - had been shot by snipers. RCTV has been denied all casting on Venezuela, this is a fact. Even when the earthquake on Chile, the national broadcast by the president was an *optional* lending of space by the private TV stations. Here, it's forced and a daily thing for as much as Chavez saying he's pissed off at the internet. RCTV decided they weren't going to take it, and they were denied of the licence. Now they are applying that to every TV station, including cable tv, which is an entirely new thing.
Now he wants to do the same to the internet. Either you are with him, or, apparently, you have to remain silent. If it isn't something intrinsically linked to a dictatorship, well, something is wrong with the world.

Nope, saw the documentary filmed by those who were there, and then went and read every bit of old news I could find on the subject. Then I read up on the recent history of Venezuela, read up amnesty international reports from before and after the Chavez era. You know, good ol' book learning, 21st century style.

Scrameustache believes that it isn't censorship if Chavez only censors people who oppose him strongly.If there are 10 people talking, 1 opposed, 8 neutral and 1 in favour and Chavez only has the 1 person who's opposed silenced then in Scrameustache's mind that means he isn't really censoring people much since 9 out of 10 weren't censored.

That shows how much people want to hear his messages, if it wasn't clear enough. About the snipers, there is a lot on the net to be searched for regarding the events of april 11 2002. If the snipers aren't enough for you, there are gunners shooting at the manifestation - one of the being an active member of the government party -, and the attack on RCTV headquarters, led by the people at the assembly, including Iris Varela.

Censorship comes in many many forms.You can burn all the books that say something you don't like.You can kill people who express opposing opinions.You can shut down media which disagree with you.You can prevent people who oppose you from being able to express their opinions to anything but a minority of the population.

China knows very well that their firewall can be bypassed easily but the goal isn't to prevent 100% of the population from hearing things they don't like, 90% is good enough.

That's the whole point of freedom of speech.that you can voice opposition to your government even if it is democratically elected.If I can't call for my government to be dissolved/overthrown/deposed and replaced by another form of government then I don't have freedom of speech.

Chavez does not like free speech.He wants to restrict it to only things he agrees with.

If it's illegal to talk about rumours in public then anything that's bad for the government will be called a rumour.

One thing is to use your freedom of speech to oppose the government and another is to push for a coup, that is what those tv companies did. Even in the USA, if you publicly express your desire to kill the president you could end with a visit from the US Secret Service, and you could bet that if a TV station repeatedly called for the overthrow of Bush on his time or Obama now, they would end with their broadcasting license revoked by the FCC.

Parent post is correct and is not a troll. Everybody who dares to refute any of the western propaganda against Chavez is labeled a troll. I don't give a rip about it other than how easily suckered and ignorant people are about their anti-Chavez positions. He is not a dictator; he is against the USA's empire and that is why there is a big movement against him and his attempt to spread the revolt to other nations. One can't even call the USA an empire without people getting irrational.

further investigation indicated that had the recounts been completed that it would've almost certainly given Gore the necessary votes to win the election.

No. Further investigation by a coalition of newspapers revealed that the only way Gore could have won would have been to cherry pick the districts to be recounted that were favorable to him while disallowing recounts in all the districts that weren't. The supreme court sniffed out the unfairness of this & rightly put a stop to it. This biased method of counting votes is no better than counting "Only whites" or "Only those with a communist party membership card".

If you had read Reuter's report you would know that Chavez' complain was due to a website posting an completely made up and unfounded news report that a senior minister and close aidee to Chavez was assassinated. That website knowingly reported that news and kept the report on it's site for days, although it was blatantly false. This news report covers Chavez' reaction to that, in which he criticizes the spread of false, made up information. He doesn't criticize openness.

If you had done 10 seconds research you'd have noticed that this wasn't about a news story posted on the website.It was some random users posting a rumour on the forums.Not the website owners.

Essentially he wants to kill open online forums.

From google translate:

On the evening of Saturday, the President of the Republic Hugo Chávez has asked the Attorney General's Office and the Minister Diosdado Cabello take legal action against this site by false rumors posted two new forumers in one of our forums and concerned the alleged murder of two ombudsmen linked to the Government.

Chavez wants to silence anyone who doesn't agree with him.Can we just accept that he's evil yet?he's been making the effort to convince us all for a while but some people don't seem to want to listen.

he isn't going after the people who posted the rumours.(which were not defamation, they were rumours that some ministers had been assassinated.)He is going after the owners of a site which had an online forum which someone posted rumours on.It kills open online boards because if you can be prosecuted for whatever your users post then you cannot run an open online forum.

For reference if I posted "chavez was killed by an angry swarm of bees today" on slashdot then the owners of slashdot would be held responsible by Chavez for their malicious rumor spreading.

Or just because it's Chavez who does that then it is suddenly evil and anti-democratic?

If this was a coalition of Jesus, Buddha, and Santa doing this I'd be opposed.You however seem to believe he can do no wrong.

If you had didn't make up your opinions from what a dictator said his motives were, you'd see that this is not a source that one can trust.

Simple example: just yesterday a TV channel in Georgia (former USSR republic) has announced that the president (Saakashvilli) was killed, that Russian forces have entered the country, bombed cities, airfields, power plants, that they have taken over.

So this is a TV station, all of which are under complete control by the government. See anything suspicious?

no no.If I put up a forum and some random forum user posted saying that the US VP died in a freak accident involving a pie-eating contest and a pair of suspenders nobody but the most psychotically credulous would even think about taking it seriously.

The funny thing is that the National Enquirer is in the running for this year's Pulitzer having outed former democrat presidential candidate John Edwards as a hypocrite for talking about family values while sleeping with an aide & getting her pregnant.

By defending the right to publish of trash like the Enquirer the US assures that the truth will get out. By muzzling all opposition Chavez displays that he is no better than Pinochet.

I guess Chavez has decided to follow the same path that every other communist leader has followed? "We cannot allow openness if it means people will disagree with me."

While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).

The inability to handle dissent is just an essential feature of the authoritarian mentality. I think it's caused by both an inability to lead by example (i.e. hypocrisy) and a profound personal insecurity that makes the person feel they need to be "right" no matter what. That's why anyone who offers dissent, however well-founded, is seen as an enemy and must be shut down. Nowhere in this do you find an awareness of the person's fallibility or an ability to feel gratitude towards those who help them shed false ideas. Their overinflated egos won't allow that. That's why it never occurs to these people that truly sound policies and truly good actions have nothing to fear from scrutiny.

It's also more evidence that Frank Herbert was right when he said: "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."

>While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).

True, but a strawman. Corporations rarely hold the broad scope of powers that governments do. Parents ditto. (Consumers can choose to not buy from a corporation they dislike; children can typically run away from abusive parents and seek refuge with neighbours and family. Seekign refuge from government is another matter entirely as history will show you.). Also, both of the aforementioned rarely their their so-called dicatatorial powers to the excesses that governments do, especially government led by politically-religious folks ala Charvez.

>While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).

True, but a strawman. Corporations rarely hold the broad scope of powers that governments do. Parents ditto. (Consumers can choose to not buy from a corporation they dislike; children can typically run away from abusive parents and seek refuge with neighbours and family. Seekign refuge from government is another matter entirely as history will show you.). Also, both of the aforementioned rarely their their so-called dicatatorial powers to the excesses that governments do, especially government led by politically-religious folks ala Charvez.

How is that a strawman? The point was not the scope or extent of the power. The point was the arbitrary way that it is exercised and the fact that justification of its use is an afterthought if it is provided at all. It's the difference between "because I am in charge and I said so" versus "because I believe it's the most reasonable way to proceed, and here are my factual reasons explaining why I think so; please let me know if new evidence comes to light."

The point was not the scope or extent of the power. The point was the arbitrary way that it is exercised and the fact that justification of its use is an afterthought if it is provided at all.

By that weak definition, everyone is a "dictatorship", and so your definition is useless. For example, you have absolutely no power to change the color of my bathroom walls. I did nothing to justify their color to you, and any justification I gave you now would sound quite arbitrary. I'm in charge of my own property

Exactly, it's not Communism at all, but Authoritarianism that's the broken feature here. That's not to say Communism does or doesn't work (though I'm inclined to think that any pure "isms" has its issues). I think Venezuela could use a healthy dose of libertarianism (little l), but then again, couldn't we all?

Now that I've mentioned so many "isms" I'm inclined to include this quote:

"A person shouldn't believe in isms, he should believe in himself." -- Ferris Bueller, Ferris Bueller's Day Off

And nothing is going to happen.If Obama could show some real financial harm from my claim he might be able to get some money out of me but the very fact that I'm powerless and not an authority protects me because my claims can be taken with a grain of salt.

on the other hand if I were in Venezuela and posted this:

"News just in!Chavez caught fucking a goat!!!"

then the owners of slashdot would have commited a crime for spreading false rumours.(probably false anyway)

because that's what this is all about:Some forum users on that site posted a rumor and now chavez wants the Internet controlled so that people can't start rumours.

news just in:McCarthyism was a very very bad thing.Are you really trying to say that Chavez suppressing dissent is fine because the US has some black spots?if anything that's a reason why he needs to be stopped now before it gets worse.

And we shouldn't dismiss it as perfectly ok just because lots of countries have suffered from oppressive governments in the past.If anything we should learn from our own history and the mistakes made in our own past and oppose suppression of free speech from the get go.

A dictatorship is a president (elected or not) that takes control of all public powers, change the constitution and laws to adapt them for his own plans and then kill every corner of freedom (slow or fast) to the point that there's no real opposition in the country, that massive media is cornered or adapted to please him and since he adapted laws for him to create the possibility of infinite reelections then he could stay on power for decades.... That's Hugo Chavez.

This is precisely what happened to Venezuelan opposition. They cried wolf from at first signs of his intentions, and it didn't happen right away. That cost them a LOT of credibility, and the metaphorical frog did nothing as it felt the water warming up around it.

I don't get it. A website falsely claims that a government minister was assassinated and keeps posting it for days. So when Chavez complains that that particular website shouldn't be allowed to falsely claim that a minister was killed then Chavez is suddenly a dictator? Where exactly do you base that conclusion on?

He didn't simply complain, he called to control what can be seen or written on internet. Actually Venezuelan government has been already working on a single point of access to Internet under a "better performance" false claim.

I don't get it. Chavez complained about defamation campaigns and even rally calls to execute yet another coup d'etat on Chavez. He complained that that sort of actions are illegal and therefore shouldn't be allowed to happen. Where exactly did you started reading and where exactly did you base yourself to claim that what he wants is "control" the media?

This shows how intellectually bankrupt Chavez is... stealing this idea from the Australian government. Next he will be stealing from America and giving billions in untraceable loans to mismanaged corporations.

The first reaction to news like this -- rated up twice in a minute, mind you -- is to look at this issue through a hyperpartisan lens.

The desire to curtail freedom on the Internet comes not from the right or the left, but the powerful. Anybody with a computer can have a voice, and as with the copyright industries there is a wish to turn back the hands of time rather than to adjust to the new reality, progress be damned.

It's time to shed partisanship and take a very real look at the role the

Hugo Chavez has promised to speed up "the construction of true socialism" in Venezuela now that he can stand for re-election indefinitely. "We have exploded the barriers to a permanent socialist revolution [newstechnica.com]."

Chavez has already taken control of the country's vast oil wealth, expropriated private landholdings and businesses and instituted a programme of deep social reforms. He has attacked the "distribution of wealth" problem by destroying as much of it as possible. After Chávez promised to nationalise

have the stock exchange ever been a good indicator of wealth? About the only thing its good at is allowing people with more money or credit then brains to trade paper for paper in a endless circle jerk.

In Venezuela the freedom of speech is the greatest in the world. In Television News anchors openly talk about killing the president, they make calls for a coup d'etat, all this goes for newspapers and radio stations.
People can say and think whatever thay want.
There has been 11 years of this. And they still say that there is no freedom of speech in Venezuela.
I watch how the world sees Venezuela, they show a country in total war with mass killings, wich is total bullshit. Yes there was a time 2002-2003 where there was a fight and a coup d'etat, wich the people fought to get their president back and they won, the vast majority of Venezuelans won.
This small faction of what we call "media terrorist" who own private TV stations, radio, and newspapers still attack their own country by lying to them.
Im venezuelan, if you want to know the truth of whats happening here, come to Venezuela, to any part of it, and you will see peace, a beautiful country.

In Venezuela the freedom of speech is the greatest in the world. In Television News anchors openly talk about killing the president, they make calls for a coup d'etat, all this goes for newspapers and radio stations.

[citation needed]

People can say and think whatever thay want.

"Think", yes; there's no Thought Police in sight. "Say", yes too unless it's printed / broadcast in any major news outlet, and even then you only have to pack up in advance of the defamation "suit".

There has been 11 years of this. And they still say that there is no freedom of speech in Venezuela.
I watch how the world sees Venezuela, they show a country in total war with mass killings, wich is total bullshit.

Again [citation needed]. Straw man anyone?

Yes there was a time 2002-2003 where there was a fight and a coup d'etat, wich the people fought to get their president back and they won, the vast majority of Venezuelans won.
This small faction of what we call "media terrorist" who own private TV stations, radio, and newspapers still attack their own country by lying to them.

They attack their government, which is not the same. Shall I explain the difference to you?

Im venezuelan, if you want to know the truth of whats happening here, come to Venezuela, to any part of it, and you will see peace, a beautiful country.

Yeah, I guess 16,000 homicides last year [el-nacional.com] in a 24MM people country make for a lot of peace on the streets. And 27% inflation brings rainbows and puppies all around.

Dec 2002 to Mar 2003: Disrupting and attempting destruction of the oil industry, depriving everyone of fuel. Most of the saboteurs were fired and the government acquired more control of the industry.Dec 2002 to Mac 2003: Owners lock-out attempting to force Chavez a resign, did nothing against the governm

The rumor was posted anonymously in well-known forum Noticiero Digital [noticierodigital.com], which is intermittently moderated, if at all. Local TV news station Globovisión (strongly critical of Chávez's government, and a frequent target of regulatory action) quotes Chávez [globovision.com] (in Spanish):

The internet cannot be a free thing, each country has its rules. Regulation and laws. All these pages have an administrator. We must act. We're going to request support from the Attorney General.

This is not acceptable, that they broadcast whatever they want, poisoning the minds of many people

Noticiero Digital (listen, this is very grave): "Breaking news; Diosdado Cabello [wikipedia.org] murdered" [...] Someone has to be responsible here because these pages cannot be free for what you to want to say. There are laws here and they must be obeyed.

This report provides a great opportunity to see how the anti-Chavez croud is prone to knee-jerk reactions while so poorly informed. The thing is, the report which this slashdot post is based on only mentions that Chavez complained about a specific website posting false information. More specifically, the offending website, which is ran by an anti-Chavez faction, made up a story about how one of Chavez' cabinet ministers was assassinated and kept the made up story on it's site for days, although it was rep

Things like this shows why internet, in its pure, free (in all meanings), unfiltered and universally available way should get a nobel peace prize. And why all that claim to be free countries must push forward to make it keep going in that way, or face what they really are.

Venezuela is sitting on one of the largest oil reservoirs outside the US and the middle east. To make matters worse, they kicked out foreign oil companies because they want to exploit them themselves.

So I can see a lot of interest to oust the current government. By domestic and international interests that would love to see Chavez gone. Please do note that I neither say it is so nor that it ain't so. I am not in Venezuela, I just watch the whole deal from afar with a keen interest because Venezuela and the thing going on in the country and around it are a prime example of a propaganda war happening.

Take EVERYTHING you hear about Venezuela with a grain of salt. Make that an ounce. Or more. Verify with as many sources as you can, and forget about "independent sources". If you can find one, please inform me, I couldn't. Take all the propaganda from ALL sides and draw your conclusions afterwards.

Americans seriously need to get over their "it can't happen here" mentality. That mentality only means it will happen more slowly, with smaller and more calculated steps instead of a few sudden movements like this one. We already have a government that can monitor everything you say, including non-public correspondence where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You think outright censorship is very far away?

Actually, yes, it is. It's blatantly unconstitutional, and the First Amendment isn't going to go anywhere. You don't need to get over an "it can't happen here" mentality, you need to get over your baseless paranoia.

Three words for you: free speech zones. If you're not familiar with the logic behind them, please look it up. In a nutshell, the (bullshit) "logic" is that the FIrst Amendment guarantees free speech, but does not specify where that right may be exercised. Any reasonable person would conclude that the Constitution does not list specific locations because it applies everywhere in the USA, but that doesn't suit the authoritarian mentality. So now they can tell you that you may not practice free speech where any decision-makers are likely to hear you, right here in the USA.

The dangers of that path, of allowing such flimsy and easily-abused exceptions to what are supposed to be inalienable rights, are both extreme and seldom appreciated. It is not the right way; it is not a good path. It also sets a precedent.

So, they already get around that pesky Constitution when it comes to physical protests. The only real surprise will be if they don't find such clever ways to skirt the First Amendment when it comes to the Internet. That's the mentality you're dealing with here. It will because it can, and any excuse will do.

Calling it "baseless paranoia" suggests that it's impossible or extremely unlikely, that nothing like this has ever happened before, that there's no reason not to trust our federal government. It's neither "baseless" nor is it "paranoia" if you actually take a look at the direction in which this country has been heading. Of course, that will require that when you see a spade, you call it a spade. Some people have a much easier time with this than others. Obviously others prefer to bury their heads in the sand and label as "paranoid" anyone who makes that a little less comfortable.

You make a good point. Fortunately, on those occasions when University free speech zones (the setting in which they are most commonly applied) have been challenged in court, they have usually been ruled unconstitutional.
That being said, it is interesting that the people who implement these "free speech zones" are those who claim to be the strongest proponents of unfettered free speech. They are, also, from whom many of the members of the Obama Administration have been drawn.

It's blatantly unconstitutional, and the First Amendment isn't going to go anywhere.

How many examples would you like of people being imprisoned for what they've said or written, in blatant violation of the first amendment? Shall we go back to the Adams administration, or will the Wilson administration suffice?

Every country has to apply its own rules and norms." He's basically pushing for public support of laws that require journalistic integrity. In effect, he's arguing for libel laws that already exist in much of the Western world to be applied to media outlets on the internet.

One question: why is the transmission medium relevant? Libel laws should be equally applicable whether the false defamation is written in a book, newspaper, magazine, or Web site. Where does the special focus on the Internet come from,

Well, I was going to mod it insightful but I'll respond to you instead.

FTS:

It is not apparent at this time exactly what kind of controls Chavez has in mind...

So it's hard to know exactly what we're talking about here, but some parallels exist. Fortunately, President Obama actually opposes (last I heard) the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," but Representative Pelosi does support it. And also consider this bill [govtrack.us], which proposes to

...impose criminal penalties on anyone who transmits in interstate or foreign commerce a communication intended to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to another person...

Never mind the existence of tort law (IIED, NIED) that already covers these areas, let's throw people in jail for a couple years! Of course prosecutors will only use this law for good purposes, never for politically-motivated legal harassment, right? Actually I'm regularly surprised by the new ways prosecutors find to stretch words like "harassment" to prevent individuals from participating in government. And they're happy to justify themselves by dusting off the old chestnut about catching Al Capone for tax evasion.

Chavez is a dictator and obviously we should be concerned that he's making a play like this. But just because we sugar-coat it and remind people to "think of the children" by naming our bills after high-profile tragedies doesn't mean our American politicians are any less interested in controlling the flow of information, at least as far as we'll let them get away with it.

You might want to let it go. Bush was legitimately and fairly elected by the system that exists.

Wait, it was fair because the system -exists- and we should forget about it? So I suppose you'd say that because the system of "Castro is the only one on the ballot" was in existence for Cuba's recent history, Castro was the fairly and legitimately elected democratic president of Cuba, and people should "let it go?"

I am sure we will see some type of oppressive censorship in the relatively near future. Anyone that does not believe this probably is not paying attention to who is in control of the various governments within the United States.

That's crap. The US government is the de facto definition of gridlock, ineffectiveness and partisan pettiness. They wouldn't even agree on a bill to give themselves the winning lottery numbers without bickering, squabbling and turning it into a pissing match. And then they'd anonymously block it, filibuster it and shit can it. If there's one thing the lot of them are missing these days is purpose.

There's only one true political division in the United States: the old-money families and the powerful elite they represent (that represents them, actually, as the truly powerful don't like the limelight) and ordinary Americans. All other divisions are artificial creations of the media, by-products of the either-or way in which everything is presented. Left/right and Democrat/Republican are like this. The Democrats and the Republicans are two factions of a single party, the Statist Party.

There's one thing they all agree on: the government's size, power, and involvement in the daily life of citizens should be continuously expanded, with no regard for merit, necessity, or the reduction in quality of life that this will cause. Right now USA citizens enjoy relatively free access to the Internet. To the power-hungry, however, that just means this is a growth area for government. Unfortunately that's purpose enough for them. There is very much of a "because we can" mentality operating here that is not terribly concerned about immediate goals except that they make good excuses which are hard to politically oppose, such as "to stop terrorism" or "to protect the children".

So, there might be "partisan pettiness" concerning the question of what to do with an overwhelming ability to censor the Internet. But there will be no such pettiness when it comes to whether or not our politicians would like to have this ability.

As an ex-law enforcement agent of our government, I can tell you that it will not take a bill to silence those the government does not want talking. Sure, you can sit there and "take a stand" or "speak truth to power", but there is little you can do to stop an organization as large as a government. The founders of the United States gave citizens the ability to fight the government, when it gets out of control, but no one ever utilizes that power. In the end, we only have ourselves to blame.

Anyone would be an utter moron, if he were to trust any single news source. An intelligent person will read as many different sources as he can find the time to read, and compare & evaluate what he reads.

Faux news exists for the convenience of the conservative utter morons.

Actually, he has.
CANTV, which is the main telephone provider in Venezuela, has been routinely blocking certain webpages. It's owned by the government. I could find sources, but they are all on spanish. Granted, it isn't a very effective block (hello proxies), which is probably why the full blown out block hasn't been implemented: They can't.